Another “difference between” Linux question: What ist the actual difference between them?
How fast/stable are releases, compared to each other and in comparison to upstream Arch?
I think I dont get the difference because in my understanding Arch is a rolling release and with both alternatives you want to stay as close to there releases as possible, but dont break you system frequently, right?
So whats the main differences?
I ran more than a few Manjaro installations for myself and family, and still do. Despite what others say, I’ve had very, very little problems with it and maintenance has been low, users just run Octopi every once in a while and it just works.
I’ve since moved my own systems to Fedora because I just find it more useful for development, but I would still use it over vanilla Arch, which I ran for almost a decade before Manjaro. Can’t really speak to Endeavor, but as far as I know it’s basically bleeding edge Arch with the ups and downs that implies.
And whatever the stupid shit the Manjaro team has perpetrated over the years, they’ve still built a solid distro.
Manjaro is like a nice car with a canister of TNT attached to it. At first, all you experience is the nice car. If you really like the car, it is easily to feel smarter than the guy who warned you not to drive it. As time goes on, the chances that the TNT explodes goes up. However, it is always possible that your roads are smooth enough that it never blows up for you. Regardless, if you know about the design flaw, recommending such a car to others is really, really bad advice.
Using the AUR with Manjaro is like driving the car above on a gravel road. It does not guarantee that the TNT will go off, but it makes it much more likely.
I hope Manjaro continues to work well for you. Truly.
Also, please do not encourage others to use it.
Well, I’ve probably get 25 computer-years of it running fine, so how about you recommend what works for you and continue shitting on the hard work of others, and I’ll recommend what I damn well please.